Matt Perger's new tamper - Page 2

November 24th, 2016, 9:40 am

The smaller size is actually to accommodate slight manufacturing tolerances.

November 24th, 2016, 10:18 am

ds wrote:Probably because it just does not matter... 58.4 or 58.5 the difference is 0.1mm and I can't believe anyone would be able to taste difference between those two...

I fully disagree, I have a 58.4 Reg Barber and a Pergtamp which is 58.5 and there is a noticeable consistency bonus with the larger size and its obvious its fits the basket better.

You're still ignoring Perg's huge multi slide spiel (with diagrams, etc) on why 58.5 is a must for VST and then he just does 58.4 for the cheaper one with no explanation.

November 24th, 2016, 10:19 am

LukeFlynn wrote:The smaller size is actually to accommodate slight manufacturing tolerances.

Tolerances in the machining of the tamper base?

#14: Post by **jbenson4** » November 24th, 2016, 12:44 pm

sluflyer06 wrote:Did nobody else notice that in his material for the BH tamper he says "58.4 to fit VST baskets"...and his PergTamp is 58.5 for VST baskets???

Is he possibly nerfing the cheaper tamper to favor his PergTamp?

He gives a long winded explanation on why 58.5 is the magic # for a tamper but then abandons it suddenly with no explanation on why 58.4 was chosen for the POM tamper.

"...The main reason is for compatibility with VST baskets. I want to make sure that every tamper fits every VST basket.

58.50 had me receiving lots of complaints about jamming. The basket/tamper only need to be dropped/hit hard a few times to cause minor deformation, which drastically affects diameter, resulting in an interference fit (jamming).

After talking with Vince at VST, we've concluded that this dimension should avoid all of that, leading more good vibes and easy tamping times.

"

Pulled from the comments section on barista hustle

November 24th, 2016, 2:05 pm

Good to know, though I've tried a fair number of vst baskets with my perg and the fit is beautiful. Although I'm very careful with my stuff.

#16: Post by **yakster** » November 24th, 2016, 8:49 pm

He explained the change.

November 25th, 2016, 12:35 am

sluflyer06 wrote:Tolerances in the machining of the tamper base?

The basket. I believe VSTs main focus is to ensure that, most importantly, the hole size and amount is identical... The actual rim diameter has very slight variants.

Also, it's not a fair comparison between a 58.4 reg and a 58.5 perg IMHO. Reg's don't have that very sharp edge, which is likely what is really changing/improving things rather than the 0.1mm size increase.

#18: Post by **aecletec** » November 25th, 2016, 1:29 am

sluflyer06 wrote: He gives a long winded explanation on why 58.5 is the magic # for a tamper but then abandons it suddenly with no explanation on why 58.4 was chosen for the POM tamper.

He takes his guesses far too seriously.
AKA fines are bad then fines are good.

November 25th, 2016, 8:36 am

Fair point.

#20: Post by **yakster** » November 25th, 2016, 7:11 pm

yakster wrote:He explained the change.

The explanation was in the comments

Robert D'Alessio
6 days ago
Hey Matt, what is the difference between the Pergtamp and this tamper? I can see that the Pergtamp is 58.5mm vs. 58.4 for this one. As you were involved in the design of both, why the difference?
Reply
−

Matt Perger
3 days ago
Hey Robert! The main reason is for compatibility with VST baskets. I want to make sure that every tamper fits every VST basket.

58.50 had me receiving lots of complaints about jamming. The basket/tamper only need to be dropped/hit hard a few times to cause minor deformation, which drastically affects diameter, resulting in an interference fit (jamming).

After talking with Vince at VST, we've concluded that this dimension should avoid all of that, leading more good vibes and easy tamping times.